glasgow city council · 2013. 11. 20. · st oswald’s secondary school to st margaret mary’s...

Glasgow City Council Executive Committee Report by Stephen Curran, Executive Member for Education and Young People Contact: Morag Gunion, Head of Curriculum, Learning and Teaching

Ext: 74086

PROPOSAL TO RELOCATE ST OSWALD’S SECONDARY SCHOOL WITHIN THE SPARE CAPACITY OF THE ST MARGARET MARY’S SECONDARY SCHOOL BUILDING AS A

SHARED CAMPUS ARRANGEMENT

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

Purpose of Report To advise the Executive Committee on the outcome of the public consultation on the Council’s preferred option for St Oswald’s Secondary School.

Recommendations It is recommended that the Executive Committee approves the proposal that St Oswald’s Secondary School building be closed in June 2014 and that the school be relocated into the St Margaret Mary’s building which would become a Campus for use by both schools operating independently. This would be effective from August 2014 following a planned transition programme.

Establishment Ward Strategic Planning

Area Learning Community

St Oswald’s Secondary School

(1) Linn South Holyrood

St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School

(1) Linn South St Margaret Mary’s

This document has been issued by Glasgow City Council in response to the consultation in terms of The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. The Ordnance Survey map data included within this document is provided by Glasgow City Council under licence from Ordnance Survey order to fulfil its public function in relation to this public consultation. Persons viewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey Copyright for advice where they wish to licence Ordnance Survey mapping/data for their own use.

1

2

1. Introduction

1.1 On 16 May 2013 Glasgow City Council approved consultation on a proposal to relocate St Oswald’s Secondary School to St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School building, in Castlemilk, on a shared campus basis.

1.2 Glasgow City Council consulted in line with the requirements of the Schools

(Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. This requires that local authorities adopt a robust and transparent framework for consultations on school closures, and other major changes to the estate. The process requires authorities to actively involve and consult with children and young people, staff, parents/carers, parent councils and other school users. It is necessary to include an educational benefits statement - that is, the authority must produce a statement setting out its assessment of the effects on children and young people and other users of any affected establishment. There is a minimum six week term time consultation period.

• Consultation papers were distributed to a wide range of stakeholders and interested

parties. • A notice to advise of the consultation arrangements was placed in the press. • A dedicated page was set up on the Council website for both information, and to

enable interested parties to respond to the proposal. • The consultation period ran from 16 May to 13 September inclusive, in excess of the

statutory six weeks term time • Public meetings were held to facilitate involvement. • Meetings were arranged with the relevant Parent Councils where appropriate. • Young people from St Oswald’s and St Margaret Mary’s Secondary Schools were

engaged in the consultation process. • Members of the local Area Partnerships were briefed by lead officers. • Meetings were held with staff in the establishments concerned. • All responses to the consultation were noted and validated by a member of the

Education Directorate in order to ensure that views and comments were accurately reflected in the consultation response paper.

1.3 In relation to the proposal, two public consultation meetings were held in St Oswald’s and

St Margaret Mary’s Secondary Schools. Approximately 76 people attended the St Oswald’s meeting and 35 attended the St Margaret Mary’s meeting. The issues raised at those meetings are contained in Appendix H.

1.4 As part of the consultation process, officers ensured that the views, opinions and

alternative suggestions of respondents were given due consideration. In order to ensure a rigorous and thorough evaluation of the responses received, a member of the Education Directorate read every response to validate the key aspects of responses to provide Elected Members with a detailed objective analysis.

An officer with education services offered and met individually with parents to discuss

details of the proposal as it would affect their children. The (acting) headteacher of St Oswald’s Secondary School participated in these meetings.

3

A meeting was convened for St Oswald’s parents to meet with parents of young people attending John Paul Academy who also have additional support needs. These young people are being educated in supported provision within the mainstream sector. Parents were able to identify, with similar concerns and were able to offer reassurance and a positive parent perspective based on their children’s experience at John Paul Academy.

Opportunities to see the proposed wing of St Margaret Mary’s building that would be

adapted for St Oswald’s Secondary School were extended to parents, carers and other stakeholders. It was important that parents carers and young people were able to see the area of the building that would be used exclusively by St Oswald’s pupils and staff.

The young people of both schools were given the opportunity to visit the schools and meet

with each other. Their views were listened to, recorded and considered within the consultation process

Throughout all of these additional meetings the views of all stakeholders were listened to

and considered before the consultation period closed. 1.5 The statutory consultation period concluded on 13 September 2013 1.6 Officers focused on identifying the main issues and concerns (see Section 3) giving each

response equivalent weighting in order to ensure the basis of the response, rather than the number of people who made it, was fully explored and evaluated prior to offering conclusions and recommendations.

1.7 In any major consultation there is a possibility that errors may occur. Therefore

procedures were put in place to identify, amend and record any errors.

In the initial proposal paper, it was incorrectly stated that St Oswald’s Secondary School was in the St Margaret Mary's Learning Community. It is in the Holyrood Learning Community.

1.8 For reporting consistency Appendices I (Mapping) and K (Explanation of Condition and

Suitability ratings) have been included in this report.

2. Response to the consultation

2.1 A total of 699 responses to this proposal were received. These cited 11 main issues

which are outlined below. These are shown in Appendices A and B (to protect personal information of children and young people, the responses received from those under the age of 16 in Appendix B are labelled as ‘anonymous’)

Four hundred and fifty-seven additional respondents requested their responses remain

anonymous 2.1.1 One of the 699 responses was a signed petition with 502 signatures. 2.1.2 Two sets of duplicate responses were received from individual respondents and recorded

4

First group of duplicate responses received numbered 431 Second group of duplicate responses received numbered 75

2.2 Six hundred and eighty-five of the responses received were against this proposal. These

are detailed in Appendices D and G. 2.3 There were no alternative proposals put forward. 2.4 The 11 issues raised against the proposal by the 699 respondents are detailed below. A

full breakdown of all reasons raised is detailed in Appendix F. Reason No of Respondents (i) Child Safety 613 (ii) Relationships/ Friends 519 (iii) Capacity 96 (iv) Building Condition 74 (v) Educational Case 15

(vi) Transition Issues 12 (vii) Community Concerns 10 (viii) Road Safety 9 (ix) Distance 6

(x) Transport availability 3 (xi) Territorial Issues 2 2.5 The main issues detailed above in 2.4 are explored further in section 3 below.

3. Main Issues

3.1 The education provided by St Oswald’s Secondary School is valued highly by the parents and carers and the local community.

3.2 The responses to the consultation and the public meetings highlighted 11 main areas of

concern as listed in Section 2.4. 3.3 Issue: Child Safety

Six hundred and thirteen respondents cited this as a major area of concern. These concerns included adequate supervision of St Oswald’s young people during break times across the range of social areas and moving around a large building to access specialist classes. In addition there were concerns raised about safe, secure playground areas to ensure no young person would inadvertently walk out of the school unnoticed and place themselves in danger. In addition respondents questioned the safety of young people with mobility issues accessing learning over two floors which will comprise the wing development.

5

Response The issue of safety for young people is fundamental to any consideration for a change of school location by Glasgow City Council. Through the consultation period the council has encouraged stakeholders, including parents and carers, to visit St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School. These stakeholders were shown the proposed, dedicated playground areas. Adaptations required including increased fencing, were explained for increased safety arrangements. These areas would be dedicated for the use of St Oswald’s young people to access and use exclusively. In addition, these areas would be supervised at all break times by up to 13 adults including the leadership team of St Oswald’s Secondary School and the pupil support assistants assigned to this duty. This high ratio of supervision by adults, who know these young people well, would ensure the same safety procedures that are currently working in St Oswald’s Secondary School in Cathcart are put in place at the new campus. It is accepted that in the short to medium term, young people may need support when moving from the proposed wing base to and from specialist subject facilities in another area of the school. During these times, and for as long as is required, class groups of St Oswald’s young people will be accompanied by St Oswald’s staff in the school. This will be a priority. In addition, it is proposed, as part of the adaptations that colour coded pathways and signage, including the use of symbols and text, are used on floors and walls to clearly delineate the way to specific subjects from the base wing area. Transition programmes prior to relocation will further support orientation for young people. During a visit to St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School a group of 15 parents were able to experience the change of period and the relatively quiet and calm way in which this took place with young people working and moving about the school. Stairwells in St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School are much wider than those in St Oswald’s Secondary School. Young people in St Oswald’s are used to using stairs. St Oswald’s has a second floor at basement level that requires young people to use stairs every day. A range of teaching spaces including PE and the playground are accessed from this level. The use of stairs in St Margaret Mary’s will not pose a difficulty for pupils from St Oswald’s. For young people with impaired mobility the proposed dedicated stairwell for exclusive use of St Oswald’s young people will be wider and therefore less congested than they are currently used to. In addition, there is a lift arrangement at St Margaret Mary’s building to accommodate any one with mobility difficulties. St Margaret Mary’s building is DDA compliant commensurate with all new buildings within Glasgow City Council education estate. St Oswald’s building is not DDA compliant by modern standards. Vigilance and supervision by St Oswald’s staff will also be extended to social areas in the school used by both groups of young people during break times.

6

3.4 Issue: Facilities in the St Margaret Mary’s building for dealing with wet weather

arrangements for St Oswald’s pupils. Response

The arrangements for wet weather conditions for St Oswald’s pupils would remain as they are at present in their current building which works very well. Staff and parents are satisfied with these arrangements. When bad weather prevents the use of the playground, young people and staff gather together in designated classrooms. At these times a range of wet weather activities are put in place to occupy young people. These arrangements would be replicated in the new campus building.

3.5 Issue: Relationships and Friends: Will pupils attending St Oswald’s be bullied

when relocated to the new campus?

Five hundred and nineteen respondents cited this issue as a serious concern. Response The issue of bullying was explored and addressed at length with pupils of both St Oswald’s and St Margaret Mary’s Secondary Schools. There is no doubt, the view of both pupil focus groups, was that bullying, in any form, is quickly and effectively dealt with in both schools. Pupils know the arrangements for dealing with bullying and have a clear idea of the referral mechanisms and consequences in place in both schools. In other schools in Glasgow which have previously undergone co-location or merge, including supported provision for young people with additional learning needs in eight mainstream schools, and where bullying was considered a serious concern during the consultation period, it is reported and evidenced, through the Council’s monitoring and quality assurance process, that there has been no evidence of bullying. Careful monitoring by staff in both schools will ensure bullying will not be tolerated.

It is the view of both headteachers and officers of the Council, with considerable experience of additional support needs that the pupils of St Oswald’s Secondary School would not be subject to widespread bullying.

3.6 Issue: Capacity: Is there adequate space in St Margaret Mary’s?

Ninety-six respondents raised the issue of the suitability and capacity of the St Margaret Mary’s building to accommodate St Oswald’s as a separate school. Response Careful discussion, planning and consideration have been focused on this issue. St Margaret Mary’s building provides more than enough capacity to allow for St Oswald’s Secondary School to share the campus building as a separate school. A range of stakeholders contributed to the discussion and proposed planning around this question. These contributors included parents who had been encouraged to visit the school, throughout the consultation period, to look at the proposed considerations and plans for a

7

wing development that would be made exclusively available to St Oswald’s Secondary School. Approximately 20 parents and carers visited St Margaret Mary’s building during this period. Parents were encouraged to offer comment and suggestions in order that the best possible reconfiguration of the building would emerge. Several very helpful ideas were offered by parents and adopted within the plan. The proposed wing arrangement would incorporate at least nine classroom spaces for general subjects and one science lab situated over two floors. These classrooms are situated immediately above each other and would be accessed by students through a dedicated stairwell exclusive to St Oswald’s Secondary School. This stairwell is directly adjacent to a separate entrance which will be adapted for use by St Oswald’s pupils in a separate, safe, quiet, discrete area of the playground. In addition, a dedicated suite of toilets within this wing will be allocated for the exclusive use of St Oswald’s young people. The toilets, which include accessible facilities, are adjacent to the general purpose classrooms and the dedicated stairwell. In addition to the above noted general purpose classrooms, St Oswald’s Secondary School will have its own home economics kitchen, art room and music room. A health and wellbeing base will be developed and dedicated for the use of young people who will require some quiet space, from time to time, for reflection, should they require it. In addition, St Oswald’s Secondary School will have shared, timetabled access to all other subject specialist classrooms, facilities and areas. Provision has also been made for St Oswald’s young people to access the second, full size, red blaise pitch and a separate safe playground area for their exclusive use at break times. A new range of office facilities will also be sited within the wing for use by St Oswald’s leadership team.

The planning and discussion for the development of the wing continues to evolve in order that the best possible outcome is achieved for both schools. An interim floor plan is included in the set of appendices that are attached to this report (Appendix I) Interim costs for the adaptations required to fulfil the commitment by the Council to this wing development are contained in the undernoted section headed ‘Financial Implications’

Projections for the school rolls show that there would be no pressure on accommodation for either school.

3.7 Issue: Lack of Outdoor Education and Learning Opportunities

Many respondents raised issues about St Oswald’s young people continuing to access out of school learning opportunities and the perception of a diminished outdoor education / PE facility and environment available to them at the proposed campus.

Response Respondents raised concerns that St Oswald’s Secondary School will suffer from a loss of outdoor/community learning facilities and opportunities if relocated to the proposed campus.

St Oswald’s Secondary School has two school minibuses and will continue to be able to access current out of school learning opportunities that are valued and used at present. In addition St Margaret Mary’s campus has two full-size outdoor pitch facilities which will

8

be accessible to St Oswald’s classes through timetabled arrangements. The physical education facility at St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School has been custom built to cater for 800 pupils. This is therefore more than adequate to cater for the increased number of pupils / classes from St Oswald’s. Castlemilk Leisure Complex is close to the new campus and St Oswald’s Secondary School will continue to have opportunities to access it. Linn Park playground complex is easily accessible to St Margaret Mary’s building and St Oswald’s can continue to access this also. New community links can easily be developed from the new location to support further opportunities for learning and social development for St Oswald’s young people. There should be no detriment to out of school learning opportunities caused by relocation.

3.8 Issue: Building Condition: Keep St Oswald’s as a separate school in the current

building

Many parents and staff wished St Oswald’s to retain its identity in the current building. Seventy-four respondents raised the issue of the condition of St Oswald’s building including the possibility of refurbishment.

Response

St Oswald’s Secondary School was opened in 1967. The current suitability rating is ‘D’ indicating that the effective life of the building has expired and / or there is serious risk of imminent failure. Education Services had advice from Development and Regeneration Services of Glasgow City Council, following feasibility survey in summer of 2013, that there is no possibility of upgrading or renovating the school and that a new build would be required. They indicate that the current design of the school, the small, inflexible classrooms, the restricted access and egress would indicate that there are limited possibilities of investment in the renovation of the school. St Oswald’s could not be remodelled to be a building for the 21st century.

3.9 Issue: Implications for St Margaret Mary’s of St Oswald’s being separate Response

St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School is a new build school, which opened in 2004 to cater for 800 pupils. The current roll in the school is just over 400. Currently St Margaret Mary’s is at 50% capacity. The excellent facilities in this building are under-utilised. Neither of the options, to build a new separate St Oswald’s Secondary School or to leave St Margaret Mary’s at 50% capacity presents best value for the Council. The Council has a duty to secure best value in the decisions that are made.

3.10 Issue: Educational Case There was concern expressed from fifteen respondents that the relocation of St Oswald’s

Secondary School to the spare capacity in the St Margaret Mary’s building would result in disruption and a reduction in the quality of young people’s education.

9

Response If the proposal is approved the date of relocation will be from August 2014. It is proposed that prior to this date St Margaret Mary’s building currently running at 50% spare capacity will be reconfigured to ensure St Oswald’s will have a discrete area / wing exclusive to their school. The building will be renamed as a campus and both schools will have equal status within it operating as two independent schools

The authority has extensive and effective experience in dealing with transition issues. If the proposal is approved, transition programmes would be planned and actioned over an extensive period of time in order to support young people and staff to become familiar with their new campus and building. This will include interaction with staff and young people of St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School who will share the building with them.

Respondents also raised issues over how the authority would ensure that the valued educational standards currently experienced in St Oswald’s would be maintained. Officers have taken account of these concerns. All of the current staff at St Oswald’s will relocate with the young people and all of the valued, current, teaching and learning resources and strategies will transfer with them and be replicated within the new location. The quality of education for St Oswald’s young people will not be compromised in any way. The educational environment for St Oswald’s young people will be enhanced in the new shared building. An extended curriculum will be available that will include subjects not currently available within St Oswald’s existing curriculum, for example, technical education. State of the art facilities for all specialist subjects at the new campus will enhance the learning environment for all of St Oswald’s young people and staff. This will effectively enhance the quality of the educational curriculum and environment currently available at the St Oswald’s Secondary School campus in Cathcart The quality of teaching and learning in the new environment will be monitored closely by quality improvement officers to ensure the benefits to young people at St Oswald’s Secondary School in the new campus are maximised. This would ensure that valued educational standards are not only maintained but enhanced. Disruption to young people’s education would be kept to a minimum. There would be no reduction in the quality of education.

3.11 Issue: Concerns about meeting the needs of the pupils attending St Oswald’s

Secondary School should the proposal be approved. A large number of responses stated at that the two pupil populations of St Margaret

Mary’s and St Oswald’s are different, and so different, that it would be undesirable to co-locate the two schools within the one campus.

10

Response St Oswald’s Secondary School meets the needs of young people with additional learning

needs. In many local authorities in Scotland a school with the profile of St Oswald’s would not exist as a separate school. In these other authorities parents have expressed a preference to reflect recent legislation and include young people, with appropriate support, in mainstream schools.

This proposal, should it be approved, would allow for the transfer of all staff working at St Oswald’s Secondary School to move, with their pupils, as a separate school into the Campus building. This would ensure that, teaching and learning strategies, opportunities and resources in place at St Oswald’s Secondary School and currently valued by parents, staff and pupils would be replicated. In addition, the existing good practice would be retained and St Oswald’s Secondary School would further benefit from the ‘state of the art’ facilities that are currently under utilised in the proposed campus building. As a consequence, St Oswald’s curriculum would be enriched by the addition of specialist facilities and subjects currently not available to them in their current setting, for example library facilities, chaplain facilities and technical education. It is the view of officers of Glasgow City Council, with considerable experience of additional support needs, and the headteachers of both schools that the needs of all young people at St Oswald’s Secondary School would continue to be fully met and additional value added to their education.

3.12 Issue: Transition

Respondents asked if there would be support for young people at times of transition.

Response Glasgow City Council has extensive experience of operating successful transition programmes facilitating mergers, co-locations and relocations of schools. Should the proposal be approved, leadership teams in both schools will very quickly liaise, agree and communicate a clear transition programme which will facilitate familiarisation opportunities for both schools that will allow for increased knowledge and understanding of both pupil groups, staff groups and the reconfigured building arrangements. Formal and informal familiarisation events will be planned to ensure both schools have an insight into the ethos and workings of each other. These arrangements will be facilitated through a sensitive and appropriately paced transition programme that will serve to ensure young people and staff are comfortable with each other understand each other’s needs and dispel any concerns that the groups are worried about including any perceived issues of bullying. Parents and carers will be included in the transition programme. This will all take place before the proposed relocation date of August 2014.

11

3.13 Issue: St Oswald’s Secondary School Community

There have been concerns by respondents that this relocation proposal will destroy the very special community that is St Oswald’s Secondary School. Response There is no desire by the Council to do this. Headteachers and parent councils of merged/relocated schools in Glasgow City report that following a merger, relocation or co-location a new school community emerges very quickly. The staff expertise, the ethos of the school, the support of pupils and the support by parents and carers will remain constant for St Oswald’s and St Margaret Mary’s pupils as they become part of the co-located arrangement and campus.

3.14 Issue: Catholic Education

Many respondents have raised concerns that the Catholic education provision for young people with additional learning needs in the south side of the City will be lost. Response There will be no detriment to the Catholic education status of St Oswald’s Secondary School. All current practices and services, including those of visiting priests will continue to be available and welcomed at the new campus. St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School is a Catholic School. St Oswald’s is also a Catholic School. The proposal by the Council is one of relocation of St Oswald’s within the same broad area of the City. It is the Council’s proposal to reconfigure this Campus on the South Side of the City to ensure both Catholic Schools operate independently from a common Campus arrangement and for both to maintain their strong Catholic ethos. St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School has the services of a full time Chaplain on site and this would be extended to St Oswald’s Secondary School, a service not currently available to St Oswald’s in the Cathcart campus. This would enhance the Catholic provision currently available to St Oswald’s Secondary School. Catholic provision will be maintained within a denominational Campus that caters for two distinct, separate, Catholic establishments. There will be no loss of Catholic provision in the south side of the City for young people.

3.15 Issue: Road Safety Nine respondents raised this issue as a concern.

Response Taxis will continue to transport young people in St Oswald’s to the new location. There will be a separate, dedicated, secure, drop off area, within the campus, adjacent to the proposed new entrance for young people from St Oswald’s to enter the building.

12

The young people will not be dropped off in the street outside of the campus and will therefore be safe and away from any roads. Supervision by staff will ensure safety of young people and that no one leaves the campus. For further safety measures, it has been agreed that all gates, with the exception of the main gate into the campus, will be closed during the school day. The current St Oswald’s campus in Cathcart has always been open across the school pitch to Holmlea Road. It is not the practice of young people from St Oswald’s Secondary School to wander out of the school grounds even when playing on the school pitch. Staff in St Oswald’s Secondary School know their pupils well. They will continue to be vigilant in keeping pupils safe in the new campus.

3.16 Issue: Transport: Additional Time spent travelling to and from School and associated distances of travel

Nine respondents who referred to this as an issue stated that they were concerned about the additional travel time to and from the new campus arrangement and the distances covered.

Response The distance in travel time between St Oswald’s and St Margaret Mary’s is less than 10 minutes by car. Many young people currently being educated at St Oswald’s transferred, at the secondary stage, from St. Raymond’s Primary School which was located within 3 minutes travel time by car from St. Margaret Mary’ School. Therefore, this journey was acceptable when young people attended St. Raymond’s Primary. In addition Glasgow City Council’s transport policy ensures that no pupil will have to spend longer than one hour in a taxi or bus on their normal journey to and from school. In general it is considered that journeys will be broadly similar with most pupils spending at most five minutes more or less than at present on their journey to and from school. As is current practice, should the acceptable normal time be exceeded then alternative transport arrangements will be made.

3.17 Issue: What are the benefits of this relocation proposal? Response

There are significant benefits of the proposal for all pupils currently attending St Oswald’s Secondary School. The newer building will provide an inclusive and accessible learning environment. The upgraded provision will meet the needs of all pupils better by extending the current curriculum being delivered. For example there are currently no technical rooms in St Oswald’s. There will be better facilities for all aspects of the curriculum but especially in specialist resources for curriculum areas.

13

Teaching and learning for St Oswald’s young people will continue to be maintained through the valued and successful strategies currently in place. Young people at St Oswald’s will continue to be taught, exclusively, by their own staff. The use of ‘state of the art’ facilities will add value to the educational practices currently in place for St Oswald’s young people and staff members.

The pattern of the school day, including the length, will be similar for both schools. The number of hours of school attendance will not change.

The skills of staff and their particular specialisms and expertise will be shared with each other.

Recent examples of integrated provision in primary and secondary schools in Glasgow City Council are testament to the value of the enhanced staff skill expertise available on campus and beneficial to both pupil groups through the sharing of advice and resources across the full spectrum of learning. Social development for all young people on campus will be enhanced as they become sensitively exposed to a wider, more diverse peer group. This will encourage in both pupil groups an awareness of each other replicating society as a whole and enhancing the development of informed and desirable adult values across diversity.

There will be two headteachers and senior management teams available on campus able to share and build on existing good practice. All pupils will benefit from these factors.

4. Education Scotland Report

As part of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, Education Scotland complete a report on the proposals. The council has reviewed the original proposal in light of all representations received, including the report from Education Scotland. The Education Scotland report is attached as Appendix E. The following are key extracts from the report.

4.1 Issue: Concern as to whether St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School building was

suitable to accommodate children with a broad range of additional support needs including those with autism spectrum disorder.

Response

It is the view of officers of the Council, with a wide experience of this sector, and both headteachers that the St Margaret Mary’s building, following adaptations to develop a discrete wing facility for the exclusive use of St Oswald’s Secondary School will be entirely suitable to accommodate the young people who currently attend St Oswald’s Secondary School. The facilities in this proposed campus building would be adapted where necessary. For example, there are already plans to adapt the height and levels of specific work tops/desks, sinks, benches etc to ensure these facilities meet the needs of all young people who will require to access them. In addition, a quiet reflective facility would be developed for young people who, from time to time, may require it, including

14

those with autism spectrum disorder. A suite of toilet facilities have been identified within the wing area for the exclusive use of St Oswald’s pupils.

4.2 Issue: Safety of young people in the event of a fire. Response

As in all of Glasgow City Council’s schools there are well established, tried and tested, fire safety procedures. The staff and young people of St Oswald’s Secondary School would be familiarised with the arrangements for the St Margaret Mary’s building for such an event. The headteacher of St Oswald’s Secondary School would review these procedures in the light of any additional requirements for the safety of St Oswald’s pupils and take any steps necessary to adapt the fire procedure policy in the school to ensure the safety and wellbeing of St Oswald’s pupils. This would include the use of the school lift for young people whose mobility is impaired. This would be done in consultation with the headteacher of St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School.

4.3 Issue: Concern as to whether the dining facilities in St Margaret Mary’s

Secondary School building are adequate to cope with the specific requirements of some young people in St Oswald’s Secondary School

Response The dining facilities at St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School have been built to cater for

800+ pupils. Currently the roll of St Margaret Mary’s is 412. The school facilities are under utilised and there is also sufficient space to accommodate St Oswald’s young people. The dining room could operate separate sittings for both schools should this be required. In addition, a separate dining area could be created in St Oswald’s for those young people where exposure to a large group could be stressful.

4.4 Issue: The lack of outdoor space for the sole use by young people from

St Oswald’s Secondary School Response

Should the proposal go ahead, the council has considered carefully, within the planning for the co-location of St Oswald’s Secondary School that discrete, safe, playground areas have been identified and dedicated for the sole use of young people from St Oswald’s Secondary School. This would include exclusive use of one of the two full-sized football pitches for break times. The plans for these areas were discussed with a group of St Oswald’s parents who visited the school.

4.5 Issue: The quality of public transport to St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School Response

The vast majority of young people who currently attend St Oswald’s Secondary School travel by taxi provided by Glasgow City Council. There are only six young people, at this time, who are independent travellers and use public transport. Young people across the city who attend schools similar to St Oswald’s have their skills for independent travel to

15

and from school supported, where appropriate, by the staff. The independent travellers, currently at St Oswald’s Secondary School will, if required, also be able to access taxi support again until such time as they become used to their new school location and be supported by staff members to pursue and learn their new route on public transport. There are a good number of bus services in the Castlemilk area.

4.6 Issue: The safe drop-off and pick-up point at the campus of young people who use taxis to get to school

Response Within the planning for this relocation the council has carefully considered this

arrangement. There is a dedicated drop off/ pick up taxi point identified at the campus for the safe delivery and pick up of St Oswald’s young people. This is adjacent to the proposed new entrance that all St Oswald’s young people would use to access their own wing of the building. This area is well away from any other playground facility and will only be used for taxi purposes.

4.7 Issue: Staff at St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School have concerns about the

pressure placed on facilities for physical education within a co-located campus. Response St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School has been built to accommodate 800+ young

people. It is currently 50% approximately under utilised. Physical education facilities at the school are sufficient to facilitate an increase in pupil numbers to accommodate St Oswald’s Secondary School. It is proposed that, should the proposal go ahead, the medical room in St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School would be adapted to accommodate additional changing facilities for young people from St Oswald’s Secondary School and the this facility be re-sited in another area of the school.

4.8 Issue: Staff at St Margaret Mary’s felt that insufficient consideration had been

given to the amount of time young people from St Oswald’s would be moving around the proposed joint campus. They also felt that they would require to be trained and have suitable information about individuals from St Oswald’s Secondary School in order to provide effective support to young people from St Oswald’s in emergency circumstances.

Response Should this proposal go ahead before full co-location would be a well planned transition

phase. The timescale will support and ensure that the leadership teams in both schools accommodate familiarisation events and arrangements to develop awareness, understanding and knowledge of pupil and staff groups in both schools and the changes within the reconfigured building.

Both schools will work together during this phase to support positive relationships in the sharing of an adapted common building that will become the co-located campus.

16

4.9 Issue: Parents from both schools expressed the view that, should the proposal go ahead, they become involved in developing the transition plan for existing young people and those who may attend from August 2014

Response

The views of parents would always be included in any transition planning arrangements. An officer of the council has met with parents individually and collectively throughout the consultation period in order to capture and address the views of parents. Several insightful suggestions developed as a result of these meetings and were incorporated into the planning and proposed wing development of the campus highlighted in section 3.

4.10 Issues: Young people in St Oswald’s Secondary School saw the educational

benefits of moving to St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School. However, concerns were expressed about the size of the building, moving around the building independently and potential noise in corridors at period changes that could be upsetting for some young people particularly those with autism spectrum disorder.

Response The planned, adapted wing development of the building would be given over to St

Oswald’s Secondary School for its exclusive use. This wing area would accommodate 75% of the timetabled classes for pupils. The movement at period changes within this wing would be therefore minimal. For shared specialist subject facilities outwith the wing, young people from St Oswald’s will be escorted by adults for as long as it is deemed necessary. In addition the planning incorporates colour coded signage and pathways that clearly map the route to individual specialist subject areas.

St Oswald’s parents who visited the school experienced the change of period and agreed

that the movement and noise level at these times were acceptable and much quieter than would be expected in a secondary school with a much larger pupil population.

Young people from St Oswald’s Secondary School have already visited St Margaret

Mary’s Secondary School. Should the proposal go ahead, many more visits will be undertaken by the young people to familiarise them with the building, pupils, staff and the period changes.

St Oswald’s Secondary School staff know their young people well and will support them

all through any perceived difficulties or concerns they may have in the early stages of co-location. This includes young people with autism spectrum disorder

4.11 Issue: Bullying was raised as a concern Response

The issue of bullying was explored and addressed at length with pupils of both schools by an officer of the council and the consultant tasked by the council to capture the views of stakeholders on the proposal.

17

Pupils in both schools know the arrangements for dealing with bullying and are clear that this issue, in any form, is dealt with quickly and effectively in both settings. In addition they understand the referral mechanisms and consequences in place in both schools. In other schools in Glasgow which have previously undergone co-location or merge, including supported provision for young people with additional learning needs in eight mainstream schools, and where bullying was considered a serious concern during the consultation period, it is reported and evidenced, through the Council’s monitoring and quality assurance process, that there has been no evidence of bullying.

It is the view of both headteachers and officers of the Council, with considerable experience of additional support needs that the pupils of St Oswald’s Secondary School would not be subject to widespread bullying.

4.12 Issue: Will the proposal affect the curriculum for young people from St Margaret

Mary’s Secondary School

Response

St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School building is currently 50% under utilised. The relocation proposal for St Oswald’s Secondary School to occupy the spare capacity in the building will not adversely affect the curriculum for St Margaret Mary’s pupils. St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School will continue to deliver the same highly effective curriculum to all its young people.

5. Scottish Ministers Call in

Should this proposal be approved by the Executive Committee, there would be a ‘call-in’ period during which representations could be made to the Scottish Ministers. The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010; If the proposal is approved (i.e. to close schools) there is a three week period, which begins on the date the decision is made, for anyone to make representations to Scottish Ministers requesting the case to be called in. There is then a further three week period for Ministers to reach a decision on whether or not to call in the case. Once a decision has been reached, the local authority in question and each individual who had requested a call in will be notified of the decision.

6. Council Strategic Plan Implications

Economic Impact: None

Sustainability: N/A

Financial: It is anticipated that the cost of adaptations required to

St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School will be in the region of £100,000. This is considerably less than costs to bring the St Oswald’s Secondary School building up to required standard.

18

If this proposal is approved, Education Services will work with officers from Development and Regeneration Services to identify an appropriate annual maintenance charge for the adaptations made to the property.

Legal: The consultation process was conducted in compliance with statutory requirements and exceeded these requirements in certain areas. Under the Schools (Consultation)(Scotland) Act 2010, should a decision be taken by the Executive Committee to close an establishment, Education Services will have six days to inform Scottish Ministers of that decision. Thereafter Scottish Ministers have a period of 6 weeks in which to issue a call-in notice that would have the effect of remitting the closure proposal to Scottish Ministers. In deciding to issue a call-in notice the Scottish Ministers can take account of any relevant representations made to them (by any person) within the first 3 weeks of that 6 week period.

Personnel: There would be no compulsory redundancies Education Services staff as a consequence of these proposals and if the proposal is approved discussions with staff and unions would commence at the earliest opportunity.

Sustainable Procurement and Article 19:

N/A

7. Recommendations

It is recommended that the Executive Committee approves the proposal that St Oswald’s Secondary School building be closed in June 2014 and that the school be relocated into the St Margaret Mary’s building which would become a Campus for use by both schools operating independently. This would be effective from August 2014 following a planned transition programme.

Appendix A

Number of Responses to Proposal by Respondent Category

Proposal

St Oswald's Secondary School/St Margaret Mary's Secondary School

Appendix A - Number of Responses to Proposal by Respondent Category

Respondent Category Number of Responses

Children - Closing Establishment 18 Children - Receiving Establishment 2 Children - Other 0 Parents / Carers - Closing Establishment 56 Parents/Carers - Receiving Establishment

3

Parent / Carers - Other 2 Parent Council 0 Friend - Closing Establishment 348 Friend - Receiving Establishment 0 Resident 213 Staff - Closing Establishment 15 Staff - Receiving Establishment 9 Staff - Other 0 Area Committees 0 Church 0 Community Council 0 Elected Members 1 MSP/MP/MEP 1 Other Council Services 0 Other Public Bodies 0 Petition 1 Trade Unions 0 Employee - GCC 4 Unknown / Other 26

Total: 699

Appendix B

List of Respondents to Consultation Document

Proposal


Appendix B - List Of Respondents to Consultation Document

Proposal Ref Number Initial Surname


1088 L Byrnes


1093 B Coll


1161 A Anon


1162 M McDonnell


1163 M Gillen


1164 A Anon


1165 A Anon

St Oswald's 1166 M Halliday

Appendix B


Proposal

Secondary School/St Margaret Mary's Secondary School St Oswald's Secondary School/St Margaret Mary's Secondary School

1167 A Anon


1168 M Gordon


1169 M Branston


1170 A Campbell


1171 H Mehboob


1172 J Longwill


1173 C Hemphill


1174 E Ponsonby

St Oswald's Secondary School/St Margaret Mary's

1175 J Ferguson

Appendix B


Proposal

Secondary School St Oswald's Secondary School/St Margaret Mary's Secondary School

1180 P O'ryan


1181 R O'ryan


1191 A Anon


1192 M Belton


1194 G Heenan


1195 O Breheny


1198 A McLaughlin


1199 W Horton


1200 A Anon

St Oswald's 1201 J Sharkey

Appendix B


Proposal


1202 A Anon


1203 M Gallagher


1204 E Guinney


1205 A Anon


1206 M Normand


1207 A Anon


1208 A Anon


1209 A Anon


1211 D McKENDRICK

Appendix B


Proposal


1212 A HART


1216 C Boyle


1217 J O'shea


1219 A Anon


1221 C Maher


1222 A Anon


1225 m mckendrick


1226 A Anon


1227 A Anon

St Oswald's 1228 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1230 J McKelvie


1233 A Anon


1236 G O'Neill


1237 D Cuddihy


1238 M Cuddihy


1239 M McElhinney


1240 M Clark


1241 V Byrnes


1242 K McElhinney

Appendix B


Proposal


1250 F Wardlaw


1251 H Robertson


1252 V Kennedy


1255 P Collar


1256 F DIckson


1260 A Anon


1261 A Anon


1263 A Anon


1264 T Malaney

St Oswald's 1265 J O'Hagan

Appendix B


Proposal


1268 J Byrnes


1274 S Mortimer


1275 A Anon


1276 A Anon


1306 A Anon


1307 A Anon


1308 A Anon


1309 A Anon


1310 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1312 A Anon


1313 A Anon


1314 A Anon


1315 A Anon


1316 A Anon


1317 A Anon


1318 A Anon


1319 A Anon


1320 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1322 A Anon


1323 A Anon


1324 A Anon


1325 A Anon


1326 A Anon


1327 A Anon


1328 A Anon


1329 A Anon


1330 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1331 A Anon


1332 A Anon


1333 A Anon


1334 A Anon


1335 A Anon


1337 A Anon


1338 A Anon


1340 A Anon


1341 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1343 A Anon


1344 A Anon


1345 A Anon


1346 A Anon


1347 A Anon


1348 A Anon


1349 A Anon


1350 A Anon


1351 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1352 A Anon


1353 A Anon


1354 A Anon


1355 A Anon


1356 A Anon


1357 A Anon


1358 A Anon


1359 A Anon


1361 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1363 A Anon


1364 A Anon


1365 A Anon


1366 A Anon


1367 A Anon


1368 A Anon


1369 A Anon


1370 A Anon


1371 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1372 A Anon


1373 A Anon


1375 A Anon


1377 A Anon


1379 A Anon


1380 A Anon


1381 A Anon


1383 A Anon


1384 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1387 A Anon


1388 A Anon


1390 A Anon


1391 A Anon


1392 A Anon


1394 A Anon


1395 A Anon


1396 A Anon


1397 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1398 A Anon


1399 A Anon


1400 A Anon


1401 A Anon


1402 A Anon


1403 A Anon


1404 A Anon


1405 A Anon


1406 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1408 A Anon


1409 A Anon


1410 A Anon


1411 A Anon


1412 A Anon


1413 A Anon


1414 A Anon


1415 A Anon


1416 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1423 P McDonald


1425 J Harkins


1426 A Anon


1427 H Walker


1428 R Dougan


1429 M McCann


1430 O Jagielka


1431 J Byrnes


1432 M Harris

St Oswald's 1433 G Sheridan

Appendix B


Proposal


1435 A Anon


1437 A Anon


1438 A Anon


1439 A Anon


1440 A Anon


1441 A Anon


1442 A Anon


1443 A Anon


1444 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1445 A Anon


1446 A Anon


1447 A Anon


1448 A Anon


1449 A Anon


1450 A Anon


1451 A Anon


1452 A Anon


1453 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1456 A Anon


1457 A Anon


1458 A Anon


1459 A Anon


1460 A Anon


1461 A Anon


1462 A Anon


1463 A Anon


1464 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1465 A Anon


1466 A Anon


1467 A Anon


1468 A Anon


1469 A Anon


1470 A Anon


1471 A Anon


1472 A Anon


1473 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1475 A Anon


1476 A Anon


1477 A Anon


1478 A Anon


1479 A Anon


1480 A Anon


1481 A Anon


1482 A Anon


1483 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1484 A Anon


1485 A Anon


1486 A Anon


1487 A Anon


1490 A Anon


1491 A Anon


1492 A Anon


1493 A Anon


1494 A Anon

St Oswald's 1497 J Macleod

Appendix B


Proposal


1498 A Anon


1499 A Anon


1500 A Anon


1501 A Anon


1502 A Anon


1503 A Anon


1504 A Anon


1505 A Anon


1506 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1507 A Anon


1508 A Anon


1509 A Anon


1510 A Anon


1511 A Anon


1512 A Anon


1513 A Anon


1514 A Anon


1515 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1517 A Anon


1518 A Anon


1519 A Anon


1520 A Anon


1521 A Anon


1522 A Anon


1523 A Anon


1524 A Anon


1525 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1526 A Anon


1527 A Anon


1528 A Anon


1529 A Anon


1530 A Anon


1531 A Anon


1532 A Anon


1533 A Anon


1534 L Gray


Appendix B


Proposal


1536 A Anon


1537 A Anon


1538 A Anon


1539 A Anon


1540 A Anon


1541 A Anon


1542 A Anon


1543 A Anon


1544 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1545 A Anon


1546 A Anon


1547 A Anon


1548 A Anon


1549 A Anon


1550 A Anon


1551 A Anon


1552 A Anon


1553 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1555 A Anon


1556 A Anon


1557 A Anon


1558 A Anon


1559 A Anon


1560 D Moore


1561 E Sexton


1562 T Kelly


1563 A Kelly

Appendix B


Proposal


1564 J Quigley


1565 M Wallace


1566 J Livingston


1568 A Anon


1569 A Anon


1570 A Anon


1571 G Ercolino


1572 C Mulhern


1573 T Hoy


Appendix B


Proposal


1575 A Anon


1576 A Anon


1577 A Anon


1578 A Anon


1579 A Anon


1580 A Anon


1581 A Anon


1582 A Anon


1583 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1584 A Anon


1585 A Anon


1586 A Anon


1587 A Anon


1588 A Anon


1589 A Anon


1590 A Anon


1591 A Anon


1592 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1594 A Anon


1595 A Anon


1596 A Anon


1597 A Anon


1598 A Anon


1599 A Anon


1600 A Anon


1601 C Pugh


1602 G O'Kane

Appendix B


Proposal


1603 A Anon


1604 A Anon


1605 A Anon


1606 A Anon


1607 A Anon


1608 A Anon


1609 A Anon


1610 A Anon


1611 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1613 A Anon


1614 A Anon


1615 A Anon


1616 A Anon


1617 A Anon


1618 A Anon


1619 A Anon


1620 A Anon


1621 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1622 A Anon


1623 A Anon


1624 A Anon


1625 A Anon


1626 A Anon


1627 A Anon


1628 A Anon


1629 N McBride


1630 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1632 A Anon


1633 A Anon


1634 A Anon


1635 A Anon


1636 A Anon


1637 A Anon


1638 A Anon


1639 A Anon


1640 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1641 A Anon


1642 A Anon


1643 A Anon


1644 A Anon


1645 A Anon


1646 A Anon


1647 A Anon


1648 A Anon


1649 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1651 A Anon


1652 A Anon


1653 A Anon


1654 A Anon


1655 A Anon


1656 A Anon


1657 A Anon


1659 A Anon


1660 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1661 J O'Hagan


1663 A Anon


1664 A Anon


1666 T Boyle


1667 A Dubar


1668 F Carrick


1669 N Latif


1670 R Dalziel


1672 K Wilson

St Oswald's 1673 J Wilson

Appendix B


Proposal


1674 A Anon


1675 A Anon


1676 A Jordan


1677 A Anon


1678 N Sweeney


1679 K Cooke


1680 L McGuinness


1681 M McGuinness


1682 B McGuinness

Appendix B


Proposal


1683 A Barton


1684 M MacNair


1685 P Carvil


1686 S McElroy


1687 K Cooke


1688 A Anon


1689 A Anon


1691 P Devine


1692 R Gallacher

St Oswald's 1693 M Hunter

Appendix B


Proposal


1694 A Anon


1695 A Anon


1697 F N'Fruity


1698 C Docherty


1699 R Craig


1700 A Bently


1701 A Anon


1702 D Clark


1703 P Barrett

Appendix B


Proposal


1704 P Campbell


1705 A Anon


1708 g mcdonnell


1709 A Anon


1710 A Anon


1711 A Anon


1712 C Campbell


1714 A Anon


1715 M Muniz


Appendix B


Proposal


1717 A Anon


1718 A Anon


1719 A Anon


1720 A Anon


1721 A Anon


1722 A Anon


1723 A Anon


1724 A Anon


1725 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1726 A Anon


1727 A Anon


1728 A Anon


1729 A Anon


1730 A Anon


1731 A Anon


1732 A Anon


1733 A Anon


1734 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1736 A Anon


1737 A Anon


1738 A Anon


1739 A Anon


1740 A Anon


1741 A Anon


1742 A Anon


1743 A Anon


1744 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1745 A Anon


1746 A Anon


1747 A Anon


1748 A Anon


1749 A Anon


1750 A Anon


1752 K Jeans


1753 A Anon


1754 S Docherty

St Oswald's 1755 M MacLeay

Appendix B


Proposal


1756 M McNulty


1757 . Arturos


1758 C Allan


1759 G Black


1760 K Platt


1761 E Fallon


1762 J Fallon


1763 J Donnelly


1764 T Montgomery

Appendix B


Proposal


1765 E Lochead


1766 L Belton


1767 J Renshaw


1768 M Barton


1769 F Montgomery


1770 F Rae


1771 M McPhee


1772 J Belton


1773 L Rae

St Oswald's 1774 H Montgomery

Appendix B


Proposal


1775 R Gillespie


1776 L Montgomery


1777 S Rae


1778 I LochHead


1779 I Donnellly


1780 S Darkin


1781 D Poarty


1782 N Topper


1783 C Strickland

Appendix B


Proposal


1784 E Squire


1785 L McLuskey


1786 A Anon


1787 S Boyle


1788 J McBrearty


1789 A Linich


1790 J Pugh


1791 S Pugh


1792 W Bonner

St Oswald's 1793 T Linich

Appendix B


Proposal


1794 A Anon


1795 A Anon


1796 A Anon


1797 A Anon


1798 A Anon


1799 A Anon


1800 A Anon


1801 A Anon


1802 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1803 A Anon


1804 A Anon


1805 A Anon


1806 A Anon


1807 A Anon


1808 A Anon


1809 A Anon


1810 A Anon


1811 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1813 A Anon


1814 A Anon


1815 A Anon


1816 A Anon


1817 A Anon


1818 A Anon


1819 A Anon


1820 A Anon


1821 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1822 A Anon


1823 A Anon


1824 A Anon


1825 A Anon


1827 A Anon


1828 A Anon


1829 A Anon


1830 A Johnston


1831 N Roberts

St Oswald's 1832 S Winton

Appendix B


Proposal


1833 J McLeod


1834 A Anon


1835 K MacKinlay


1836 A Anon


1837 A McClafferty


1838 J Beattie


1839 S Lalley


1840 C Ingram


1841 S Capaldi

Appendix B


Proposal


1842 A Powell


1843 M Platt


1844 D Cameron


1845 J Sloan


1846 L Linich


1847 R Foley


1848 C Dalrymple


1849 J Mitchell


1850 D Muldoon

St Oswald's 1851 P O'Donnell

Appendix B


Proposal


1852 M Dorrian


1853 A Morris


1854 A Mitchell


1855 G Johnstone


1856 A Anon


1857 A Anon


1858 A Anon


1859 A Anon


1860 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1861 A Anon


1862 A Anon


1863 A Anon


1864 A Anon


1865 A Anon


1866 A Anon


1867 A Anon


1868 A Anon


1869 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1871 A Anon


1872 A Anon


1873 A Anon


1874 S Morton


1875 A Anon


1876 P Legowski


1877 A Anon


1878 A Anon


1879 J Harvie

Appendix B


Proposal


1880 A Anon


1881 A Anon


1882 W Gorman


1883 A Anon


1884 M Greig


1885 A Anon


1886 J Orr


1887 P O'Neill


1888 G O'Neill

St Oswald's 1889 K Wilson

Appendix B


Proposal


1890 J Irons


1891 M Nicol


1892 J McShannon


1893 B Legowski


1894 A Young


1895 A Anon


1896 A Anon


1897 M Legowski


1898 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1899 A Anon


1900 A Anon


1901 P Anderson


1902 C Hunter


1903 A Merulla


1904 S Law


1905 A Beglan


1906 R Atack


1907 C Butler

St Oswald's 1908 J Gillen

Appendix B


Proposal


1909 S Gillen


1910 T Johnston


1911 C McKenzie


1912 A Anon


1913 A Anon


1914 A Anon


1915 A Anon


1916 A Anon


1917 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1918 A Anon


1919 A Anon


1920 A Anon


1921 A Anon


1922 A Anon


1923 A Anon


1924 A Anon


1925 A Anon


1926 A Anon


Appendix B


Proposal


1928 A Anon


1929 A Anon


1930 A Anon


1931 A Anon


1932 A Anon


1933 A Anon


1934 A Anon


1935 A Anon


1936 A Anon

Appendix B


Proposal


1937 A Anon


1938 A Anon


1939 A Anon


1940 A Anon


1941 A Anon


1942 A Anon


1944 A Anon


1945 A Anon


1948 R McKenzie

St Oswald's 1949 S McKenzie

Appendix B


Proposal


1950 P Sloey


1951 A Anon


1952 H Donohoe


1953 P McKay


1954 A Duffy


1955 V Love


1956 S Harvie


1957 A Anon


1958 J Young

Appendix B


Proposal


1959 J Legowski


1960 A Anon


1961 M Gorman


1962 M Latif


1963 S Latif


1964 S McKenzie


1965 A Anon


1966 P Tennant


1967 C Perkins

St Oswald's 1968 J Boyle

Appendix B


Proposal


1970 A Anon


1971 A Anon


1972 T Harris MP


1973 L Cleland


1974 L Garrity


1975 N McBride


1977 E McGee

Total: 699

APPENDIX C

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

There were no alternative proposals submitted

Appendix D

Total Issues Raised Against ProposalBreakdown of Reasons Categorised as ‘Others’

Proposal


Appendix D – Total Issues Raised Against Proposal

Reason Total For Reason % of Total

Child Safety 613 31.96 % Road Safety 9 0.47 % Territorial Issues 2 0.10 % Distance 6 0.31 % Transport Cost 0 0.00 % Transport Availability 3 0.16 % Breakfast Club 0 0.00 % After School Activities 0 0.00 % After School Care 0 0.00 % Class Sizes 0 0.00 % Community Concerns 10 0.52 % Relationships/Friends 519 27.06 % Transition Issues 12 0.63 % Financial Issues 0 0.00 % Educational Case 15 0.78 % Capacity 96 5.01 % Building Condition 74 3.86 % Other 559 29.14 % Request for Information 0 0.00 %

TOTAL COUNT OF REASONS AGAINST PROPOSAL: 1918

Appendix D


Proposal

Appendix D – Breakdown of Reasons Categorised as ‘Others’

Reason Total For Reason

4

5th move of school for young person 1

accomodation in St margaret mary's would not meet needs of children in st oswald's

1

Building is not suitable. 1

Building suitability and lack of outdoor PE facilities. 1

Building unsuitable for a variety of reasons. vulnerability of young people.

1

building unsuitable for ASL children. 1

Children would be upset at the move. 1

Closing St Oswald's will mean closing the only catholic ASL school in the south of Glasgow.

1

Closing St Oswald's will mean losing the ASL catholic school in the south of the city

1

Closing St Oswald's will mean loss of ASL secondary in south of city.

1

Closing St Oswald's will mean loss of catholic ASL school in south of city

1

Commitment needed to ensure that appropriate adaptations to St Margaret Mary's are carried out. Staff in St margaret Mary's would require training to understand about ASL needs.

1

concern over shared areas 5

Appendix D


Proposal

concern over shared areas. 5

Concerns over shared areas at lunchtime particularly. Needs confirmation that building addaptations will be carried out.

1

concerns over shared areas. 2

DDA addaptations would be needed in some classrooms

1

detrimental to both groups of children 1

difficulties for pupils mixing in large m/s school. 1

distance to St margaret Mary's 1

emotional concerns for the YP concerns. 1

good community links currently 1

Health and safety concerns. Proposals cover two floors. removal of catholic education in south of city.

1

improvements should be made to St Oswald's and leave open.

1

insufficient car parking 1

insufficient PE and outdoor facilities in St Margaret Mary's

1

Lack of access for disability in St Margaret Mary's 1

lack of appropriate PE faclities. 1

lack of outdoor sports facilities 1

lack of outdoor sports facilities. 1

lack of PE facilities 1

Appendix D


Proposal

Location of rooms for St oswald's within St Margaret Mary's is not an ideal position.

1

los of extensive outdoor areas in St Oswald's 1

lose of ASL school in south of city 1

losing a demononational ASL school from south of city. 1

Loss of ASL school in south of city 8

loss of an ASL denominational school on southside. 1

loss of ASL catholic school in south of city. 1

loss of ASL catholic school in south side. 1

Loss of ASL catholic school on south side. 3

loss of ASL school 1

Loss of ASL school in south of city 6

loss of ASL secondary school in south side 1

Loss of catholic ASL school in south side 39

Loss of catholic ASL school in south side Loss of PE facilities.

1

loss of catholic ASL school in south of city 154

loss of catholic ASL school in south of city Loss of outdoor spaces

1

loss of catholic ASL school in south of city. 95

Appendix D


Proposal

loss of catholic ASL school in south side 2

loss of catholic ASL school in south side of city. 24

loss of catholic ASL school in south side. 32

loss of catholic ASL school in southside of city. 8

loss of catholic ASL school in southside. 3

loss of catholic ASN school in south. 1

loss of catholic education in soth of city. 1

loss of catholic school in south of city 1

Loss of catholic school in south of city. 3

Loss of catholic school in south of Glasgow 1

Loss of catholic school in south side 1

Loss of catholic school on southside of city. H&S fears as classrooms planned for St Oswald's are on 1st and 2nd floors.

1

loss of catholic secondary school in south of city. 1

loss of catholic secondary school in south of city. Building unsuitable - lack of outdoor PE facilities

1

loss of catholic secondary school in south side. 2

loss of extensive grounds in current school. 2

loss of extensive outdoor facilities 8

loss of extensive outdoor facilities in St Oswald's 1

Appendix D


Proposal

loss of extensive outdoor grounds 1

loss of extensive outdoor space 1

loss of facilities for outdoor education. 1

loss of local environment and amenities 1

loss of local facilities 1

loss of outddor facilities 1

loss of outddor space 1

loss of outdoor areas 1

loss of outdoor areas. 8

loss of outdoor facilities 28

Loss of outdoor facilities and shortage of PE facilities in St Margaret Mary's

1

loss of outdoor facilities in current school 1

loss of outdoor facilities in st oswald's 2

loss of outdoor facilities. 16

loss of outdoor PE facilities. 1

loss of outdoor space 4

loss of outdoor space. 1

loss of outdoor spaces 1

loss of parental choice 1

Appendix D


Proposal

Loss of purpose-built ASN school in south of city. School ethos will be lost.

1

loss of valuable outdoor space 1

Mainstream school too busy 1

Mainstream setting not ideal for St Oswald's pupils 1

mobility issues as proposal is over two floors in St MM's 1

needs of pupils with ASD and ASL not met in large environment.

1

No ASL denominational school remaining in south of city

1

no comments given. 1

no details 1

no reasons given 1

none given 3

not clear 1

not meetiong needs of vulnerable young people. 1

Parents have not been given enough information. 1

PE facilities could be over stretched. 2

positive location in community 1

possibility of bullying 1

Possible loss of catholic education in south of city.

1

Appendix D


Proposal

Location on 1st and 2nd floors of St Margaret Mary's could prove H&S issue for St Oswald's pupils. Loss of identity Proposed classrooms being on 1st and 2nd floors is not good for children with mobility issues.

1

Provision for children with autism. 1

Pupils need a small school. 1

removes choice in the area. 1

respondents reports that students have expressed axiety over move.

1

retain separate school 1

School should not be uprooted and moved 1

Shared areas between both schools 1

St Margaret Mary's loses teaching time each year due to poor weather. Loss of PE facilities.

1

St Margaret Mary's unsuitable for ASL pupils 1

St margaret Mary's unsuitable for children with ASL Third move of school for child

1

St Oswald's better as a separate school 1

St Oswald's should be refurbished. 1

TOTAL FOR REASON ‘Other’: 559

Appendix D

Total Issues Raised For ProposalBreakdown of Reasons Categorised as ‘Others’

Proposal


Appendix D – Total Issues Raised For Proposal

Reason Total For Reason % of Total

Child Safety 0 0.00 % Road Safety 0 0.00 % Territorial Issues 0 0.00 % Distance 0 0.00 % Transport Cost 0 0.00 % Transport Availability 0 0.00 % Breakfast Club 0 0.00 % After School Activities 0 0.00 % After School Care 0 0.00 % Class Sizes 0 0.00 % Community Concerns 0 0.00 % Relationships/Friends 3 25.00 % Transition Issues 0 0.00 % Financial Issues 0 0.00 % Educational Case 4 33.33 % Capacity 0 0.00 % Building Condition 2 16.67 % Other 3 25.00 % Request for Information 0 0.00 %

TOTAL COUNT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSAL: 12

Appendix D

Total Issues Raised For ProposalBreakdown of Reasons Categorised as ‘Others’

Proposal

Appendix D – Breakdown of Reasons Categorised as ‘Others’

Reason Total For Reason

Improve pupils' self esteem to attend m/s school. 1

many benefits fot st oswald's pupils 1

none given 1

TOTAL FOR REASON ‘Other’: 3

Appendix E

Consultation proposal by Glasgow City Council Report by HM Inspectors, Education Scotland, addressing educational aspects of the proposal to relocate St Oswald’s Secondary School into spare capacity within St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School. Context This report from Education Scotland is required under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. It has been prepared by HM Inspectors in accordance with the terms of the Act. The purpose of this report is to provide an independent and impartial consideration of the council’s consultation proposal. Section 2 of this report sets out the views expressed by consultees during the initial consultation process. Section 3 sets out HM Inspectors’ consideration of the educational aspects of the proposal and the views expressed by consultees. Section 4 summarises HM Inspectors’ overall view of the proposal. Upon receipt of this report, the Act requires the council to consider it and then prepare its final consultation report. The council’s final consultation report should include a copy of this report and must contain an explanation of how it has reviewed the initial proposal, including a summary of points raised during the consultation and the council’s response to them. The council has to publish its final consultation report three weeks before it takes its final decision. 1. Introduction 1.1 Glasgow City Council proposes to relocate St Oswald’s

Secondary School into spare capacity within St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School. Young people who attend St Oswald’s Secondary School have a broad range of additional support needs including those with autism spectrum disorder.

1.2 The report from HM Inspectors is required under the terms of

the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. It has been prepared by HM Inspectors in accordance with the terms of the Act.

1.3 HM Inspectors undertook the following activities in considering

the educational aspects of the proposal: � attendance at the public meetings held on 18 June 2013 and

19 June 2013 in connection with the council’s proposals; � consideration of all relevant documentation provided by the

council in relation to the proposal, specifically the educational benefits statement and related

Appendix E

consultation documents, written and oral submissions from parents and others; and

� visits to the sites St Oswald’s Secondary School, St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School, St Bartholomew’s Primary School and John Paul II Primary School, including discussion with relevant consultees.

1.4 HM Inspectors considered: � the likely effects of the proposal for children and young people

of both schools; any other users; children likely to become pupils within two years of the date of publication of the proposal paper; and other children and young people in the council area.

� any other likely effects of the proposal; � how the council intends to minimise or avoid any adverse

effects that may arise from the proposal; and � benefits which the council believes will result from

implementation of the proposal, and the council’s reasons for coming to these beliefs.

2. Consultation process 2.1 Glasgow City Council undertook the initial consultation on its

proposals with reference to the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. The consultation included two public meetings and invitations to submit written submissions, including

an online submissions form. A few parents reported that the online system was difficult to use and occasionally crashed. An independent consultant was employed by the council to undertake a consultation with parents, pupils and staff of the school affected by the proposal. Staff of both schools did not feel that they were able to accurately present their views at meetings chaired by the consultant. The public meetings were well attended. While providing opportunities for parents and members of the community to express their views, a few parents later stated that they felt intimidated by the way in which the meetings were chaired and had been reticent to speak. Parents of P6 and P7 pupils in John Paul II Primary School had not been informed of the consultation and felt that their children had not been included in the process as well as they should have been.

2.2 The council received a large number of responses to its

consultation. Many of these responses were anonymous copies of two generic submissions. The responses came from a wide range of groups and individuals. Almost all of the responses did not support the council’s proposal. In the submissions and in the

meetings with HM Inspectors of Education, parents and staff had concerns about the lack of a purpose-built denominational school for young people with additional support needs on the

Appendix E

south side of Glasgow. Many written responses had concerns as to whether the St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School building was suitable to accommodate children with a broad range of additional support needs including those with autism spectrum disorder. The major concerns were the safety of young people in the event of a fire; whether the dining facilities were adequate to cope with the specific requirements of some of the young people in St Oswald’s Secondary School; the lack of outdoor space for the sole use by young people from St Oswald’s Secondary School; the quality of public transport to St. Margaret Mary’s Secondary School; and the safe drop-off and pick-up of young people who use taxis to get to school. The respondents who were local residents around St Oswald’s Secondary School wrote in favour of maintaining the school on the current site as they held the view that it had become a very important part of the community.

2.3 Staff in both schools saw that the proposal had the potential to

improve learning experiences for young people by offering modern accommodation and access to modern specialist teaching areas. Young people would have the opportunity to interact and socialise with a larger group of peers. Staff could work on curriculum development and improve pedagogy to the benefit of both schools. Young people from St. Oswald’s Secondary School could have easy access to mainstream subject classes if this was appropriate to their needs.

2.4 Staff in St. Margaret Mary’s Secondary School were in favour of

inclusive education but were worried that a number of adaptations to the St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School campus would need to be made to accommodate effectively the

pupils from St Oswald’s Secondary School who have a broad range of additional support needs, particularly those with autism spectrum disorder. The main concern was the pressure which would be placed on facilities for physical education which staff felt were already unsuitable. Other areas of concern included the lack of adapted equipment for home economics and technical. Staff felt that insufficient consideration had been given to the amount of time young people from St. Oswald’s Secondary School would be moving around the proposed joint campus. In order to provide effective support to young people in emergencies, staff felt that they would need to be trained and have suitable information about individuals from St. Oswald’s Secondary School. Time would be required to do this effectively.

There were also concerns about the effects of increased traffic

in and around the school campus. Staff from St. Oswald’s Secondary School were concerned about the loss of the school’s identity. For example, it would be more difficult to hold whole-school assemblies or have a staff room for St Oswald’s

Appendix E

Secondary School staff. A major concern was the perceived lack of quiet rooms throughout the new campus should the need arise as young people from St Oswald’s with autism spectrum disorder moved from one area to another. Staff from both schools felt that the council had not given sufficient consideration to developing a draft plan as to how the proposal could operate in practice. They perceived there to be a lack of clear information. The resulting uncertainty had led to anxiety amongst staff and pupils.

2.5 Parents accepted the need for alternative accommodation to the

current St Oswald’s Secondary School building and that the proposal offered the potential for improved accommodation and access to a wider range of modern specialist facilities. Overall, however they were strongly opposed to the council’s proposed solution. Parents from both schools felt that the council had not presented a clear plan of how the joint campus could operate and that the lack of clarity had led to some children becoming unnecessarily anxious. If the proposal is to go ahead, parents thought it was vital that they were involved in developing a clear transition plan for existing young people and those who may attend from August 2014.

2.6 Young people in St Oswald’s Secondary School recognised that

the current accommodation was cramped and that there was not sufficient space to offer a full curriculum. They saw benefits to moving to St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School in offering subjects such as technical and business education. They expressed a number of concerns about the size of St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School and in particular the potential noise in corridors at period changes which could be upsetting to some young people, particularly those with autism spectrum disorder. They were also concerned that some learners would find it difficult to move around the school independently. The change could also mean that some young people who travelled to school independently would no longer be able to do so. Their main concern was about the potential bullying which a number of young people from St Oswald’s Secondary School with specific additional support needs had experienced in the past in a mainstream environment.

3. Educational aspects of the proposal 3.1 Glasgow City Council has set out in its proposal a range of educational benefits for young people who currently attend St. Oswald’s Secondary

School and will attend St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School if the proposal goes ahead. In particular, it highlights how young people in St Oswald’s Secondary School would have improved learning experiences in a modern learning environment at St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School. Increased access to specialist teaching facilities

Appendix E

would improve opportunities for certification in a wider range of subjects. As appropriate to their individual learning needs, young people would be able to learn alongside their mainstream peers in selected subjects.

3.2 The council has outlined that the current St Oswald’s Secondary

School accommodation is no longer suitable in the medium to long term to provide a modern curriculum. The proposal would provide access to facilities such as computer suites and library facilities which young people currently do not have. The current St Oswald’s Secondary School accommodation is a two-storey building with the majority of rooms on one floor. There are specialist teaching areas for home economics, physical education, art and music. A small IT suite is used by a number of subjects. The outdoor space is used a great deal by young people and is a pleasant learning environment. However, the building is generally in poor condition and has insufficient space for specialist teaching in the areas identified by the council. The accommodation at St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School is much more

suited to the delivery of a modern curriculum and increased social interaction. It would provide a more appropriate environment for learning for young people from St Oswald’s Secondary School. However, the council needs to assess carefully any alterations that may be needed to the current St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School accommodation to ensure they address the specific needs of young people currently accommodated in St Oswald’s Secondary School, this includes outside space.

3.3 The increased contact with their peers could benefit pupils from both

St Oswald’s Secondary School and St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School and improve how their social needs are met. The close proximity of the schools has the potential to offer increased learning opportunities as well as improved social interaction. The pleasant social spaces in the joint campus could provide opportunities for interaction between young people from both schools and develop a range of skills for life, learning and work. This aspect of the proposal will have to be handled sensitively to ensure all young people, particularly those with more complex additional support needs feel comfortable and are valued by their peers. If handled well, this aspect of the proposal has the potential to develop positive relationships across the campus and improved social and emotional outcomes for young people.

3.4 The council has outlined how the proposal will improve the coherence

of the curriculum for young people in St Oswald’s Secondary School. Increased curricular opportunities will be available for all young people on the campus and it is important the council considers how the curriculum for young people from St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School may also be affected because of the proposal. This includes how the transition programmes for both schools may need to be adapted before August 2014.

Appendix E

3.5 The opportunities outlined by the council for a campus approach to inclusive education would benefit young people from both schools. A fresh impetus for both schools to revisit their visions, values and aims may enable both schools to continue to develop their expectations for all young people on the campus. There is the potential to do this while maintaining the distinct ethos and values of each school.

3.6 The council outlines a number of benefits for staff should the proposal

go ahead. These include the co-location of management teams breaking down isolated leadership; and providing single teacher departments with increased opportunities for professional learning with subject colleagues. These are clear benefits of the proposal. Teams from both schools will be able to learn together and develop some aspects of the curriculum together. The opportunities for working together on pedagogy, sharing skills and developing new skills which will naturally arise from the co-location will benefit staff and young people.

4. Summary 4.1 The council has outlined clearly the educational benefits of the

proposal. The educational benefits statement has demonstrated how the proposal will significantly improve aspects of the learning environment for young people in St Oswald’s Secondary School. The move to St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School will provide accommodation which is more suited to delivering a curriculum for the 21st century.

It is clear that the proposal has the potential to provide increased

learning opportunities for all young people on the proposed campus and increased professional learning opportunities for staff. The proposal will offer the potential to better meet the social and emotional needs of young people from both schools. With more opportunities for partnership working, the learning needs of young people in both schools may be met more effectively. Overall, the council has demonstrated how the proposal has the potential to improve the education of young people in both schools.

4.2 The council has consulted with a wide range of stakeholders. In taking forward the proposal, it needs to address a number of issues. It needs

to consider whether action should be taken regarding the error in the consultation document concerning St Oswald’s Secondary School learning community. It also needs to assure stakeholders that it has consulted with all key groups which may be affected by the proposal.

4.3 As the council moves forward with the proposal, it needs to outline as

soon as possible how it will continue to inform and engage with all stakeholders. In order to alleviate growing anxiety amongst young people in both schools, it needs to be proactive in working with young people, parents and staff to develop quickly a clear plan to show all

Appendix E

stakeholders how the two schools will operate on the one campus. This may need to include such things as assessments of the safety of all young people; the daily routines of the two schools and any alterations required to the campus to ensure young people from both schools continue to learn in a suitable environment. The council also needs to outline how it will support the development of the ethos of both schools to ensure that all young people continue to feel safe and cared for wherever they are on the campus. Children, young people, parents and

staff would welcome continuing engagement about the proposed campus and the council needs to outline how it will continue to engage with all stakeholders.

HM Inspectors Education Scotland September 2013

Appendix F Breakdown of Reasons given Against Proposal / Breakdown of Respondents to Proposal

Proposal : St Oswald's Secondary School/St Margaret Mary's Secondary School

Appendix F Breakdown of Reasons given Against Proposal / Breakdown of Respondents to Proposal

Appendix F Breakdown of Reasons given For Proposal / Breakdown of Respondents to Proposal

Proposal : St Oswald's Secondary School/St Margaret Mary's Secondary School

Appendix F Breakdown of Reasons given For Proposal / Breakdown of Respondents to Proposal

Appendix G

Consultation Summary Report

Proposal


St Oswald's Secondary School/St Margaret Mary's Secondary

School

St Margaret Marys Secondary School

St Oswalds Secondary School

View Number of Responses % For 7 1.00 Against 685 98.00 Unclear 7 1.00

Total: 699

Appendix H

Proposal • The proposal is to co-locate St Oswald’s Secondary School into spare capacity in the St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School building. • St Oswald’s Secondary School would retain its unique identity and ethos and would benefit from access to the specialist teaching resources in the St Margaret Mary’s building. • St Oswald’s Secondary School would have a core set of general classrooms designated for their sole use. They would also have access to specialist technical, home economics, science, drama and physical education teaching areas. • Young people in St Oswald’s Secondary School would continue to be taught by their own specialist teachers. However, as appropriate to their learning needs, and as the timetable allows, some pupils, as is the case at the moment, might be taught by specialist teachers from St Margaret Mary’s.

Consultation Report

St Margaret Mary's Public Meeting

Meeting on Wednesday 19th June 2013 Number of people attending: 38 including teachers and support staff from the schools, pupils, parents and members of the community. The headteachers of both schools and senior officers from Education Services were in attendance. The consultation report and response sheet were circulated. The meeting began with a presentation on the proposal, an explanation of the summary and the consultative process to be followed.

General reaction to proposals There was a negative reaction from parents and staff. Most thought the decision to co-locate the schools had been made and that the reason was cost saving.

Main Issues Correction to presentation Apologies were given for the initial slide indicating the dates for a previous consultation

Placing requests to St Margaret Mary's There was debate about the movement of pupils into and out of St Margaret Mary's. The headteacher of St Margaret Mary's answered that this was positive in favour of St Margaret Mary's. Reasons for the consultation Councillor Cunning stated that the Council desired to bring all ASL schools up to standard. He indicated that costs were a factor, as was the best provision for pupils. There was considerable investment in the school estate. Full integration into St Margaret Mary's The chair of the parent council of St Margaret Mary's agreed with the proposal. He indicated that full integration of St Oswald's pupils into St Margaret Mary's could be the way ahead. Some thought hat teachers could not cope with this and spoke of unsuccessful past mergers of schools. The headteacher of St Oswald's said she had been saddened about comments at the public meeting (last evening) about the perceived needs of the pupils of St Oswald's. She considered a vibrant community with resilient pupils who are out and about in the community without being mocked. Another school A parent told of an unfortunate experience at another Glasgow secondary school. The headteacher of St Margaret Mary's indicated a caring and supportive school. This had been reflected in the interviews with pupils of St Margaret Mary's. Numbers It was noted that 10 classrooms were to be used in St Margaret Mary's by pupils of St Oswald's. There would be 523 pupils of St Margaret Mary's in 2022 and a further 100 pupils from St Oswald's and this could put pressure on accommodation. A lot can happen between now and 2022. Other languages In reply to a question about the consultation the headteacher of St Oswald's said that the proposal had been translated into the languages of those eastern European parents who did not speak English There was no necessity to do this for other parets/carers of children attending St Oswald's. Length of school day It was noted that the length of the school day and the timetabled periods would be the same for both schools.

Play/ intervals The headteacher of St Margaret Mary's explained the arrangements for intervals and his ideas to secure a more protected playground for the St Oswald's pupils. There was a discussion about wet weather arrangements when the main hall is busy. The headteacher of St Oswald's stated that the house system was currently used to make provision during wet weather and that this arrangement could transfer. Staff There would be staff development to allay staff concerns about dealing with children. A member of staff at St Oswald's raised concerns about safety Councillor Curran In reply to a direct question Councillor Curran stated that St Oswald's was not being refurbished or replaced in the same manner as Holybrook or Abercorn because the proposal gave a better opportunity and would provide for better learning. he accepts that parents need reassurances and said that value for money was a secondary point. After a quote from the leader of the City council was read he stated that the location of the school was not as important as meeting the needs of young people. He said that elected members were happy to have future meetings on this matter. The parent council could request such a meeting. he offered to meet individual parents at the end of the consultation meeting. Transport It was felt that some pupils could be on a bus or taxi for a longer time under the proposal. This had been checked and only pupils ij G53 would spend more time than at present on there journey to St Oswald's in St Margaret Mary's. There is a policy of Glasgow City council that no pupil should spend longer than an hour in a taxi on their way to school.

Appendix H

Proposal

The proposal is to co-locate St Oswald’s Secondary School into spare capacity in the St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School building.

St Oswald’s Secondary School would retain its unique identity and ethos and would benefit from access to the specialist teaching resources in the St Margaret Mary’s building.

St Oswald’s Secondary School would have a core set of general classrooms designated for their sole use. They would also have access to specialist technical, home economics, science, drama and physical education teaching areas.

Young people in St Oswald’s Secondary School would continue to be taught by their own specialist teachers. However, as appropriate to their learning needs, and as the timetable allows, some pupils, as is the case at the moment, might be taught by specialist teachers from St Margaret Mary’s.

Consultation Report

St Oswald's Public Meeting

Meeting on Tuesday 18th June 2013 Number of people attending: 76 including teachers and support staff from the schools, pupils, parents and members of the community. The headteachers of both schools and senior officers from Education Services were in attendance The consultation report and response sheet were circulated. The meeting began with a presentation on the proposal, an explanation of the summary and the consultative process to be followed.

General reaction to the proposals There was a negative reaction from parents and staff. Many parents told of their own children's needs being better met in a separate special school. Many felt that the children attending St Oswald's were fragile and would not cope with the proposed co-location in a secondary school. Many spoke of their children requiring routine and familiarity. There was real anxiety about the physical robustness of the St Oswald's pupils and about change. Other parents had had a bad experience in a previous round of school rationalisations, especially in relation to St Raymond's. Parents felt that no real consideration of their children’s difficulties had been incorporated into the proposal.

Main Issues arising: Correction to report The consultation document stated that St Oswald's was in the St Margaret Mary's learning community when it was in the Holyrood Learning Community. The condition of St Oswald's The presentation had indicated that the St Oswald's building building was categorised as "D". There were questions about what this meant. The headteacher of St Oswald's answered questions on the constraints of the school building. It was stated that there would be a 4Rs feasibility study in the summer of 2013 on the costings to upgrade St Oswald's. Some of the audience made the point that there had been a rumour that the land was for sale. This was denied. The process for selling land was outlined and that this would have to follow the results of the consultations and consequent decisions. Bullying There was potential for bullying in any school. The pupils had been clear that they knew how to address bullying if it arose. Parents considered this a serious matter. In defence of St Margaret Mary's attitude to bullying a positive quote from a recent report by HMIE on the school was shared. Funding A question was asked about how much the swimming programme was costing Glasgow. The questioner guessed at £500 000. Human Rights A parent read information from UNICEF's Convention on the Rights of the Child. There was strong agreement for his statement. More able children The presentation had mentioned interviewing pupils of St Oswald's A Pupil Support Assistant contended that these were the more able children and that the proposed move would be detrimental to the more fragile children. Uniform There was discussion on uniform. There are no proposals to have one uniform for the two schools. The headteacher of St Oswald's indicated that the uniform of St Oswald's had changed before the consultation started.

Staff posts There was a contention that under the proposal staff would lose their jobs. There are no proposals to make any staff of any grade redundant. Some staff would be redeployed. One teacher had been declared as surplus to the staffing requirements of St Oswald's but this was not part of the consultation. It was confirmed that there would be two distinct management teams retained for each school Fitting into St Margaret Mary's Pupils from St Oswald's would not fit in due to their transport and to the arrangements. The headteacher of St Margaret Mary's gave assurances over the traffic management of numerous taxis, even when both schools finished at the same time. There was discussion on the finishing times and times for periods during the day. It was stated that these should be at the same time to allow timetabling. It was confirmed following questions and discussion that the playground, dining room and toilets would be shared. The headteacher of St Oswald’s said that each child at St Oswald's would be assessed to ensure their needs for relocation. Elected members Councillor Cunning sated that the Council desired to bring all ASL schools up to standard. In St Oswald's case this could be by demolishing St Oswald's or by co-location. There was a query about why more elected members were not present at this public meeting. One parent though attendance should be mandatory for elected members. Other models of co-location There was a question about whether this type of co-location had happened successfully elsewhere or whether the pupils of St Oswald's would be guinea pigs. The headteacher of St Margaret Mary's outlined two other co-located schools. Numbers It was stated that the projected roll for 2022 was 523 pupils for St Margaret Mary's and with the addition of St Oswald's pupils this would make the total for both schools over 700 pupils. Community links Members of the community spoke of the community links which existed with St Oswald's and which were appreciated. It was stated that St Oswald's was, in itself, a small community and this should be protected.

Denominational status The headteacher replied to the assertion and denied that the Catholic ethos would be lost in a co-location of St Oswald's and St Margaret Mary's.

GAMES HALL GYM HALL

GYM STORE

FEMALE CHANGEGAMES STORE

GUIDANCEBASE

DRAMASTUDIO

DR

AM

AST

OR

E

STA

GE

STA

IRW

ELL

1

STA

IRW

ELL

2

STA

FF T

OIL

ETS

FCHG

MALECHANGE

MALECHANGE

FEMALECHANGE

PEFACULTY

MEDICALROOM

DRAMA SHAREDSTAFFAREA

AHT DHT HT OFFICE

JANITOR

FUELZONE

SOCIAL SPACEMAIN

ENTRANCE

KITCHEN

REFUSE

STAIRWELL 4

PLANT ROOM&

COLD WATER

LIFT

FIR

EP

RO

TEC

TED

EN

CLO

SUR

E

REPRO

NCHG

FWC

PUPILS

MWC

PUPILS

NON CRAFT1

METALWORK1

WOODWORK1

TECHNICALSTORE

&TECHNICIAN

TECHNICALFACILITY

TURNING CIRCLE/DROP OFF

ST. OSWALD’S ENTRANCE

ST. OSWALD’S ENTRANCE

ST. MARGARET MARY’S SECONDARY SCHOOL KEY

Shared Areas

St. Oswald’s Areas

Plan of Ground Floor

STAIRWELL 5

STA

IRW

ELL

3

joannedougan

Typewritten Text

Appendix I

joannedougan

Typewritten Text

joannedougan

Typewritten Text

joannedougan

Typewritten Text

joannedougan

Typewritten Text

joannedougan

Typewritten Text

joannedougan

Typewritten Text

PE RE 1 RE 2

F M

Pr 2 Pr 3 STRMSI

TEFA

CIL

ITIE

SM

NG

R

Pr 1

STA

IRW

ELL

1

STA

IRW

ELL

2

STA

IRW

ELL

3

MUSIC 1 MUSICRECORDING

STUDIO

MUSIC 2 MUSICFACULTY

DRAMA HT ENGLISHBASE

ENGLISH 1 ENGLISH 2 ENGLISH 3 ENGLISH 4 ENGLISH 5

AV

ORATORY

STAIRWELL 4

STAIRWELL 5

CAREERS&

LIBRARYHE

STORE

HEFACULTY

HE 1

GENERALTEACHING

GENERALTEACHING

GENERALTEACHING

HE

GENERALTEACHING

ICT


Shared Areas


Plan of First Floor

ARTFACULTY

ART STOREDARK ROOM

PUPILSUPPORT

BASE

PUPILSUPPORT

BASE

HISTORY/MODERN

STUDIES 2

DHT/PT

TOILETSMALE

FEMALEDISABLED

STA

IRW

ELL

1

STA

IRW

ELL

2

STA

IRW

ELL

3

ART 1 ART 2ART STORE

KILNGEOGRAPHY 1 GEOGRAPHY 2

HEALTH &WELLBEING/

SOFT

GENERALTEACHING

GENERALTEACHING

MATHS 2 MATHS 3 MATHS 4

ICT 1 ICT 4

ICT 2 ICT 5

ICTFACULTY

MATHS 5

ICT

MATHSBASE

STAIRWELL 4

STAIRWELL 5

SCIENCE 3

SCIENCE 4

SCIENCE 2

SCIENCE/GENERALTEACHING

SCIENCE/GENERALTEACHING

SCIENCEPREP

SCIENCE 5

SCIENCE 1SCIENCEFACULTY

BOTANY


Shared Areas


Plan of Second Floor

Appendix J Glasgow City Council

Education Services

Proposal to relocate St Oswald’s Secondary School into spare capacity

within St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Introduction An equality impact assessment is when we assess our policies and functions to find out if they discriminate against any of the groups we have listed below. We have carried out an equality impact assessment on this proposal. We do not believe that introducing this proposal will have an adverse impact on any of the groups listed. We also consulted a wide range of stakeholders as detailed in Sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of the main response report. In total, 699 written responses were received. It should be noted that 1 of the 699 responses was a signed petition with 502 signatures. We have not identified any issues raised about equality during this consultation. From the impact assessment, we found that this policy would have neither a positive nor a negative effect on any of the 6 protected characteristics listed. We will discuss in more detail the effect on each of the protected characteristics. The relevant protected characteristics relating to equal opportunities are as follows:

Age; Sex; Religion and belief; Race; Disability; Sexual orientation.

Background Full details of the background to this proposal were contained in the original consultation document published in May 2013. Further details are also contained in the main response to consultation report. Assessments Age

All children affected by this proposal will continue to be given the same level of support to meet their needs. So, in terms of age, this policy will not have an adverse impact on any child. Sex All children affected by this proposal will continue to be given support to meet their needs, whether they are male or female. So, in terms of gender, this proposal will not have an adverse impact on any child. Religion and Belief All children affected by this proposal currently attend establishments that have Roman Catholic status, and this will be not change as a result of the proposals. Roman Catholic provision will be maintained within both schools. So, in terms of religion and belief, this proposal will not have an adverse impact on any child. Race All children affected by this proposal will continue to be given support to meet their needs, irrespective of their ethnicity or ethnic background. So, in terms of racial group, this proposal will not have an adverse impact on any child. . Disability Some children affected by this proposal currently attend an ALN school. Therefore, by definition, all children enrolled in St Oswald’s Secondary School can be assumed to have a disability. This may also be true for some children attending St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School, although this wasn’t articulated as part of the consultation. 519 respondents cited the issue of bullying of St Oswald’s Secondary School pupils as a serious concern. Careful consideration has been given to this point, as detailed in 3.9 of the response to consultation report. Additionally, the pupil focus groups in both schools were consulted on this point and stated that any form of bullying is quickly and effectively dealt with in both schools. 613 respondents cited the issue of safety and accessibility as a major area of concern. Careful consideration has been given to this point in relation to young people in St Oswald’s Secondary School, as detailed in 3.10.1 of the response to consultation report. It should be noted that the St Margaret Mary’s Secondary School building is compliant commensurate with Disability Discrimination legislation, whereas the St Oswald’s Secondary School building is not compliant by modern standards. However, having considered all reports and submissions related to this proposal, in terms of disability, we believe it will not have an adverse impact on any child. In fact, we believe it will have a positive impact.

Sexual orientation This proposal will not have an adverse impact on any child in relation to their sexuality. Conclusion We believe that this proposal does not have a negative effect on any of the groups we listed. If this proposal is approved, young people from St Oswald’s Secondary School will be learning in a facility that is inclusive and accessible, and fully compliant with Disability Discrimination legislation. This proposal will also support good relationships within the campus, as detailed in 3.3, 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 of the response to consultation report.

APPENDIX K Explanation of Condition and Suitability The Condition and Suitability ratings used in this document are generally as defined in the Guidance provided by the Scottish Executive publications "The Condition Core Fact" and Suitability Core Fact." Copies of the Guidance publications can be downloaded from the Scottish Government website http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/Schools/Buildings/commitments . The Suitability and Condition ratings used, in line with the Guidance given, represent the whole building average and does not reflect the individual elements or components that make up the final score. Scottish Government Definition - Condition Glasgow City Council Convention A: Good – Performing well and operating efficiently. A: Good – Performing well and operating efficiently. B: Satisfactory – Performing adequately but showing minor deterioration. B: Fair – Performing adequately but showing minor deterioration. C: Poor – Showing major defects and/or not operating adequately. C: Poor – Showing major elemental defects that could be repaired. D: Bad – Economic life expired and/or risk of failure. D: Very Poor – Showing major elemental defects requiring full replacement. D: Bad – Economic life expired and/or risk of failure . E: Distressed – Economic life expired and/or serious risk of imminent failure. Note; For reporting on the Core Facts return to the Scottish Government and Audit Scotland Glasgow's D and E conditions are reported as D. Scottish Government Definition - Suitability Glasgow City Council Convention A: Good – Performing well and operating efficiently (the school buildings and grounds support the delivery of services to children and communities)

A: Good – Performing well and operating efficiently (the school buildings and grounds support the delivery of services to children and communities)

B: Satisfactory – Performing well but with minor problems (the school buildings and grounds generally support the delivery of services to children and communities)

B: Satisfactory – Performing well but with minor problems (the school buildings and grounds generally support the delivery of services to children and communities)

C: Poor – Showing major problems and/or not operating optimally (the school buildings and grounds impede the delivery of activities that are needed for children and communities in the school)

C: Poor – Showing major problems and/or not operating optimally (the school buildings and grounds impede the delivery of activities that are needed for children and communities in the school)

D: Bad – Does not support the delivery of services to children and communities (the school buildings and grounds seriously impede the delivery of activities that are needed for children and communities in the school)

D: Bad – Does not support the delivery of services to children and communities (the school buildings and grounds seriously impede the delivery of activities that are needed for children and communities in the school)

glasgow city council · 2013. 11. 20. · st oswald’s secondary school to st margaret mary’s...

Documents